IMPORTANT 1/2/24

IMPORTANT.

What about the Eloi Question?

The 2010s, for example, witnessed the emergence of what might be termed an ironic anti-Semitism that focused heavily on flamboyant dark comedy. Many individuals, drawn heavily from the gaming community, who otherwise had little knowledge or direct experience of the Jewish Question, encountered anti-Semitism as little more than a genre of trolling. Blending with the incel sub-culture, and other corners of grievance within our decaying culture, these “anti-Semites for fun” interacted with anti-Semitism with their own ulterior motives…

OK.  But who was it who openly embraced the Alt Right?  Taylor, Johnson, MacDonald, Liddell, and of course Spencer.

See this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

Who was it who critiqued the Alt Right, from early days?

See this, me from Feb. 2017, already attacking the Alt Right.

Johnson attacked me for that, calling me a crank.

Me from Dec 2016.

And earlier –

See this.

And this.

Important warning from September 2016.

Also see this.

Who was right?  Who was wrong?  It is IMPORTANT not to let all of this fall into the “memory hole.”  The Quota Queens have a proven track record of bad judgment.  Others have a similar record of good judgment.

After it became apparent that the Trump presidency was going to be an anti-climax for both trolls and political dissidents…

Yes, and I called Trump a buffoon and a fraud even before the 2016 election while the Quota Queens were calling him “the last chance for White America” and were lauding him well after the election.

Affirmative action has consequences.  Banning and blacklisting the few people on the Far Right who have any sense and any good judgment, while embracing morons, will give you more endless failure.

WDR36: Not Your Superior

Are Asians superior to Whites?  Are they superior to you?

Listen here.

So, in this podcast, I analyze a clip from a publicly available video of Jared Taylor speaking at an Arizona university; the topic of my podcast is – Are Asians superior to Whites?  Are they superior to you?

My answer is a resounding NO. What do you think?

I must state the following once again. The ultimate purpose of Western Destiny Radio is not merely for me to express my opinions; after all, I can do so at my blogs and at my Gab account. The real purpose of the podcast is for discussion and debate with others; such has not yet taken place because all of my invitations and debate challenges have been ignored. 

Let me try again.

Mr. Taylor (or anyone else from American Renaissance) isvery welcome to come to Western Destiny Radio to discuss the Arizona speech (or any other issue). I can be reached at my Gab account. I will say it is becoming a bit tiresome for me to issue invitations and challenges that are repeatedly ignored by people who claim that they represent “the truth” and who claim that they are ever so eager to have “open discussions on race.”

One final thought. If Whites would have homogeneous states led by racial nationalist principles then they would have nothing to fear from Asians (or from anyone else). In that  case, Asians would be a competitor but not a real threat, because I am confident that healthy White societies can effectively deal with whatever challenges that would come from other groups. Creating healthy White societies is the difficult part.

Movement Witchcraft

Review of a review.

See this.

Stregoneria Politica is the title of Guido Taietti’s “manual of non-conventional political communication.” It translates as “political witchcraft,” and one can see why such a title was chosen. There may be nothing new under the Sun, and doing politics has always been a messy business no matter which system of government was employed, but the advent of the Internet and social media has rendered the political realm today even more bewildering, heaving with with a multitude of parties and actors who are all noisily vying for attention. How can a small political operation, such as a nationalist movement, make sense of this weird world and come to use this “witchcraft” for its own purposes? Taietti’s book aims to help.

It can help only those people who really want to be helped.

One of the pillars of Taietti’s thesis is that the “Right” must be radical. It must be revolutionary. He is adamant that the encroachment of “conservatism” into Right-wing politics in Italy has had a pernicious effect. In Italy there is a fairly solid foundation of genuine third positionism, nationalism, and anti-establishment sentiment. However, Anglo-Saxon style conservatism has been seeping into the Italian soil of late and causing significant harm. For Taietti, conservatism is almost indistinguishable from the liberalism it purports to oppose.

Indeed. See this:

Taylor’s thinking combines conventional conservative ideas regarding family and community, classical liberal and libertarian ideas…

That’s the solution no doubt, conventional conservatism and classic liberalism. That’s sarcasm, if you haven’t noticed.

Back to the book review:

Meloni used the migrant invasion of Italy to stoke support for her campaign, and in typical conservative fashion she focused on family and Catholic values, and this was enough to be labelled “far Right” by the mainstream media. But she is no radical revolutionary. We see the same trick play out in the United States and in other countries in Europe. Conservatives ultimately serve the establishment and the status quo. This why Taietti recommends that the “real” Right stop thinking and acting like conservatives.

Conservatives like Taylor?

This is a fundamentally serious way of living politics. In the Anglosphere, especially online, it often seems as if all the “content” is merely entertainment. 

Hmmm….entertainment. You mean like Greggy’s ever-expanding “packages of privileges?” What hypocrites.

How to create militanti? Taietti’s years of working with CasaPound provide the best advice. A small political operation must rely not only on social media. There needs to be a real-life setting: a headquarters, and face-to-face interaction. A radical Right organization which builds a headquarters should take care that it is more than just a drab office space with some computers and printers. It should be a library, a coffee shop, and — something that is increasingly in importance and popularity — a gym. This is where bonds of fellowship are tightened, and where ideas are clarified and communication skills honed. In continental Europe, locales such as these are common enough.

I agree. Compare that to the American “movement” that has devolved into a totally online, digital experience of grifters providing entertainment in exchange for “D’Nations.”

Guido Taietti puts forth another concept of significant value: Fishing for voters and supporters who already exist rather than trying to convince people to become voters or supporters. This is particularly useful advice for those who consider themselves radicals and dissidents. 

And Ted Sallis puts forth yet another concept of “significant value” – stop alienating and repulsing potential – and actual – supporters with crazed dogmas, delusional insanity, Nordicism and Anglomania, irrational anti-empiricism, tin foil hat conspiracy theories, endless grifting, perversions, constant bad judgment, etc.

With a shift of thinking towards the radical and revolutionary, the dissident can realize that his job isn’t to solve the problems created by the establishment. His job is to cause problems for the establishment.

Well, likewise, we should cause problems for the establishment of Der Movement as well.

Taietti cites the feminist movements in the United States and northern Europe as examples….A perfect example of this recently played out in Spain

Spain is “northern Europe?”

Italian speakers can already read for themselves what those ways are by getting their hands on Taietti’s book wherever it is sold — and happily, Stregoneria Politica will be translated into English soon.

I’ll read it once it comes out in English, and will make further comments on it then.

Odds and Ends, 10/8/23

In der news.

See this. Not surprisingly, Taylor is missing an important point here. Focusing on why liberal Whites are the way that they are, and agonizing about how to appeal to them, ignores the point that there are pro-White Whites who refuse to get involved in pro-White activism. These people exist; opinion polls recognize this group and I know a few of them personally. Here we have a potential pool of people who have already jumped the hurdle that Taylor ponders on how to get White leftists to do, yet these people, these pro-White Whites eschew and reject the “movement” of Taylor and the rest of them. If you can’t even get pro-White Whites to join an ostensibly pro-White “movement” then how do you think you are going to attract White liberals? If you alienate and repulse people whose views are generally moving in the same direction as yours, how to you expect to attract those whose views are inherently hostile to your beliefs? Don’t you think that the first priority is to figure out how to grab the low-hanging fruit before you start climbing the redwoods to pick something off the top hundreds of feet off the ground? How about finding out precisely why pro-White Whites want nothing to do with you? The few of such people that I know constitute anecdotal evidence only and may not be representative but, anyway, besides those who think the situation is hopeless and those afraid of social pricing, are those who think that Der Movement is composed of freakish clowns, nutcases, weirdos, and delusional people with no grounding in practical reality. And they’re right. Is that the reason why Der Movement doesn’t ask these questions – are the answers too painful?

I believe it is legitimate to form belief systems based on race – even religious or secular “religious” systems – to pursue group interests.  But the rational leadership (at least) should try not to fall into the trap of viewing innate group membership in purely moral terms, as opposed to the more objectively justifiable recognition of group differences, group interests, and the necessity at times to oppose others and their group interests when they come into conflict with your own. One problem some people on the White racialist Far Right have (and one that sometimes I recognize in myself and struggle against) is the temptation of seeing outgroup members in innately moral terms.  I other words, they are bad not because of what they do, or even for what they believe, but because of what they are. Thus, they are morally condemned for something they have had no control over – the demographic and civilizational group to which they were born.  Now, this attitude may be adaptive and it may well be payback for the way others condemn Whites as innately bad, but, still, it does strike one as unjust and unnecessary. What one simply needs to recognize is that groups are innately different, have different interests, and Whites have the right to pursue their interests as do every other group.  If outgroup members act in a manner to frustrate White interests, and/or hold and promote beliefs antithetical to White interests, then those outgroup members and their beliefs should be opposed.  If the outgroup members behave in ways particularly dishonorable and destructive, if they put White survival into jeopardy, then indeed they should indeed be hated for that, viewed as bad in moral terms.  Of course, ingroup members (broadly defined) who act in similar destructive manners should also be opposed and morally condemned (although in these cases, if they sincerely repent and do appropriate penance, there might be hope for these). In summary, it is probably most appropriate not to morally condemn a person (or hominid, broadly defined) simply on the basis of group membership, but on their actions and beliefs, when such is appropriate.  However, it MUST be recognized that outgroup members are DIFFERENT, they are NOT US, they have DIFFERENT INTERESTS, and when interests clash, and our interests are threatened, we must OPPOSE these OTHERS.  All that said, it may one day be necessary to codify innate group interests in moral terms if that is necessary for White survival, but I do not believe we have reached that point yet.

I propose a provocative hypothesis – lower societal IQ is more often than not an effect of national decline, rather than a cause of such. A higher IQ elite makes policy decisions and creates societal conditions that cause national decline, and a lower IQ is the result (e.g., from immigration, dysgenic influences on all stocks, etc.). True enough, the resulting lower IQ population may then not have the ability to reverse course and may make things worse, but the fundamental problems were created before; indeed, the lower IQ population was itself created. Consider the USA and the trends leading to lower IQ, trends that are the result of decisions and actions of high IQ elites. Even the Negro “civil rights movement” depended on Jewish leadership and the good will of people like Johnson, Humphrey, Lindsay, etc. The 1964 Civil Right Act, the 1965 Immigration Act – high IQ productions. The situation in Europe is the same. And if Imperial Rome had a lower IQ (putting aside that it had more stability, peace, and prosperity than the higher IQ periods before and after) then that was the result of decisions and actions made during the Republic. Bad character, rent-seeking elites, coupled with particular circumstances cause the problems, a dumber population is one downstream outcome.